Yahoo! SCOX Review

Message ID: 355401 Posted By: saltydogmn Posted On: 2006-03-21 09:19:00 Subject: Google Finance sucks ass Recs: 18 Dear saltydogmn@gmail.com: Oops, your post does not comply with our Community Guidelines, which can be found at http://www.google.com/googlefinance/communityguidelines.html Please take a few minutes to review these guidelines and try again. Regards, The Google Team Original Posts ---------------- Group: The SCO Group, Inc. Subject: Joint SCOX press release for Google/Yahoo LINDON, Utah, March 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") ( Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX (R) operating system-based investor fraud and stock scam, and a leading provider of UNIX-based litigation, paranoia, and net.kook wookie support, today announced their reactions to the creation of a new stock scam discussion board on Google Finance. Newly appointed Executive Vice President of Putting Things On Top Of Other Things, Tim Negris,...

Message ID: 355399 Posted By: hamjudo2000 Posted On: 2006-03-21 09:14:00 Subject: SCOX regrouping, again Recs: 18 SCO Me was not mentioned in the latest financial filing. This means that they have stopped pushing it at every opportunity. Maintenance renewals dropped 43% this quarter. They are an indication of [lack of] future OS sales. Stock volume and pumping activity dropped dramaticly after the March 14 pump. They didn't mention the pumped price in their 10-Q. SCOX came out with a couple weak offerings. It seems that SCAMP isn't targeted at customers. It sets an arbitrary price to use in legal proceedings. The other new feature is support for dual core processors. There is no indication that any customers care. However, the scam must go on. Ralph has a lot to lose if SCOX stops operating. He still has millions that he got from Canopy. So even if the PIPE fairy pulls out, Ralph can and must keep things going. What will their new plan be? Will th...

Message ID: 353966 Posted By: stats_for_all Posted On: 2006-03-15 13:44:00 Subject: SCAMP >> artificial $ for damage Recs: 19 I see SCAMP as a quasi-artificial offering presented so the "damage award" experts now scribing their reports can cross multiply LAMP installations world-wide by the SCAMP retail price. Tony Lawrence's scathing tech deconstruction of the Netscape v. Apache and terminal shell v. PHP orientation of SCO should undermine any residual doubt about SCO readiness for its stack. Argos, the UK retailer, has a wikipedia entry. It mentions that the local store server is not coordinated with the touchscreen display that customers must enter orders on. The touchscreen uses a web-interface to company wide DB-- meaning no local conditions and prices were available. We can suppose that SCAMP will allow the local server to offer the touch-screen web display. Progress marches on. ----------------------------------------------------------...

Message ID: 353783 Posted By: freecode_99 Posted On: 2006-03-14 15:42:00 Subject: Well, here's one thing for certain Recs: 11 SCO Group, for all of their balderdash and bombastic statements, are definitely funneling money out of the company to pay for something, but whomever is getting the money, it isn't going to "A" Team legal expertise. BIFF, for all of his troll-antics, is probably acting on behalf of SCOX seeking advice for their pitiful representation to date. Whomever is getting the SCOX money, they aren't attorneys (or at least not very competent attorneys). The legal battle appears to be nothing more than a cover for the end of that money funnel - and whoever is squirreling away those millions of dollars "spent" for what amounts to junior-grade representation in the courts. Somebody is playing the scam to keep squeezing the teta of this lawsuit to milk it until it's just skin and bones. Don't help the fools write their ...

Message ID: 353457 Posted By: hamjudo2000 Posted On: 2006-03-13 12:43:00 Subject: Scamp, today's challenge Recs: 20 The notion of spending $999 for Scamp is absurd. There are hardly any posts today talking about it. Yahoeuvre found just 5 since the press release came out. It's just so absurd, that it is hard to think about. However, some journalist might get the press release and come to this board for some background information. So we should make some effort. Let's see: o SCOX does not create security patches in a timely way. Therefore, it is not wise to connect a SCOX system to the internet. o SCOX is involved in several lawsuits, any of which may lead to SCOX's bankruptcy. o SCOX's finances suck. Even if they aren't driven to bankruptcy in a lawsuit, they will run out of cash as soon as their mysterious benefactor, the "PIPE fairy", stops providing regular cash infusions. o Once SCOX dies, support for Scamp goes away. o ...

Message ID: 353250 Posted By: walterbyrd Posted On: 2006-03-12 10:00:00 Subject: explain biff's position? Recs: 6 I never get a direct answer out of biff, so I won't try. I have never agreed with biff, but I used to understand what he was arguing. At least to the extent that I understood his basic premises. It seems there was a time when biff didn't flip-flop that often. Biff used to argue that novell owned the Unix copyrights, and that novell transferred those copyrights to scox. Then, on the novl board, biff argued that novl owned the copyrights, and novl still owns the copyrights. When I pointed out, to biff, that this contradicted his previous position about scox owning the copyrights. Biff claimed that scox both owned the copyrights, and did not own the copyrights. Now biff is flip-flopping again. Now biff is arguing that novl never owned the copyrights. Or is it that novl both owned them, and didn't own them? It's 07:53 here in denver. As ...